For fuck’s sake, would you describe all Jews as “genocidal tribal sun god worshippers”? At least that would be a little more fair, since Muslims are not supposed to worship Muhammed.

arildno - 14 October 2008 02:11 PM

Please, let us instead have (muslim*
)Bosnians, (muslim*) Turks and other Muslims CONDEMN
Mohammad for the vile person he was.

arildno - 14 October 2008 02:11 PM

THEN we are talking progress..

Seriously, we’re back at square one. We’re atheists here—WE GET THAT. Now quit typing statements such as half-a-billion women are not morally competant. You undermine your own argumet.

arildno - 14 October 2008 02:11 PM

*There are non-Muslim Bosnians and Turks as well, they should be excluded from the criticism of Islam and its adherents.

My imprecise terminology is at fault here—I meant “Bosniaks” not “Bosnians.” And since something like 99% of ethnic Turks are Sunni Muslims, I don’t think the distinction needs to be made, for rhetorical purposes.

By any measure more Muslim civilians have been killed by Jews and Christians in the last forty years than the other way around. I’m not just referring to battlefield casualties. Libyans blew up a couple planes. Many hundreds died when Reagan bombed population centers. The economic warfare against Iraq cost conservatively a quarter million lives, a probable majority women and children due to malnutrition, degraded water, lack of medical supplies and so on. Palestinian Arabs rocketed a lot of farmers, machine-gunned school buses, blew up schools and so on. But over the years Israel has killed a lot more of them than the other way around.

You’re ignoring difference of intent, however. In the past couple of decades Islamists have waged a holy war against the secular West, in many cases co-opting previously secular struggles (as in Chechnya and even Palestine). The West has not, and still doesn’t, target the Islamic world in general. The Islamists DO target the secular West in general.

telner - 12 October 2008 04:52 PM

The killing in Iraq has not all been Sunni and Shia murdering each other, although there has been quite a bit of that. American cluster bombs, cruise missles, carpet bombing, artillery tanks and small arms have slaughtered many, many thousands. And a good bit of the ethnic cleansing has been part of American policy.

I’m not so sure about this. The ethnic cleansing may be a by-product of American policy, but it wasn’t our idea to arm sectarian militias under the command of thuggish mullahs.

telner - 12 October 2008 04:52 PM

NATO led by the US has killed tens of thousands in Afghanistan. They are not all or even mostly Talibanis. Bomb a village to get the people shooting at you, and you will get a lot of people who aren’t. It may be acceptable losses. That’s a different discussion. But you can’t deny that they are civilian deaths.

By contrast, since the two wards began Western forces suffered fewere than 10,000 fatalities.

Again, intent matters. I agree that NATO tactics in Afghanistan have had some tragic consequences, but you cannot equate that to Taliban aims.

“Now quit typing statements such as half-a-billion women are not morally competant.”

Well, all those among them who DO regard Mohammad as the best moral example in the world certainly are.

We are not at liberty to assume that all those who publicly align themselves to a particular doctrine actually disagrees with that doctrine internally.

Rather, the proper attitude to them is to hold them responsible for holding every tenet within that publicly held doctrine, until they actually distance themselves from such elements (in which case they are not to be held responsible for holding them).

I would oppose at least as strongly any movement who thought Cicero was the ideal man, and we should strive to live exactly like him, and make society into a replica of the society he lived in, or strive to fulfill his ideals about how a society ought to be run.

Kind of irrevelent. The problems we see in the Muslim world are not more prevelant because more individuals there have the RWA mindset; it’s because of Islam. Westerners are just as susceptible to that kind of thinking, but we have had the Englightenment, and Christianity has some redeeming philosophical and ideological features that Islam lacks.

I would oppose at least as strongly any movement who thought Cicero was the ideal man, and we should strive to live exactly like him, and make society into a replica of the society he lived in, or strive to fulfill his ideals about how a society ought to be run.

Muslims believe that Muhammed had that status because God picked him, not because he was a top-notch philosopher or ethicist. You can’t take God—Allah—out of the equation.

I would oppose at least as strongly any movement who thought Cicero was the ideal man, and we should strive to live exactly like him, and make society into a replica of the society he lived in, or strive to fulfill his ideals about how a society ought to be run.

Muslims believe that Muhammed had that status because God picked him, not because he was a top-notch philosopher or ethicist.

WRONG.
Mohammad is widely regarded among Muslims to have been the ideal man, the most moral of men. THAT is the fundamental problem within Islam.
The Christian GOD is as vindictive as the Muslim God, and so is the Sikh God.
However, their respective founders/gurus were singularly non-violent men, focusing on eradicating social injustices they saw around them by peaceful means (Check up on the Guru Nanak).
No such qualities can be found in the horrid man Muslims choose to revere (or, rather, WORSHIP), and that makes Islam into a continuing blight upon this world.
Both Christianity and Sikhism have some limited capacities to change into fairly benign religions, Islam does not.

You can’t take God—Allah—out of the equation.

You sure can, because religionists are involved in a double-think:
What might be allowed for their God to do, might well be forbidden to them.

However, the life and teachings of their HUMAN idol DOES prescribe how they should live, and that is why it is less dangerous if someone wishes to model his life after Jesus Christ or Guru Nanak, than if they wish to emulate Mohammad ibn Abdallah.

WRONG.
Mohammad is widely regarded among Muslims to have been the ideal man, the most moral of men. THAT is the fundamental problem within Islam.
The Christian GOD is as vindictive as the Muslim God, and so is the Sikh God.
However, their respective founders/gurus were singularly non-violent men, focusing on eradicating social injustices they saw around them by peaceful means (Check up on the Guru Nanak).
No such qualities can be found in the horrid man Muslims choose to revere (or, rather, WORSHIP), and that makes Islam into a continuing blight upon this world.
Both Christianity and Sikhism have some limited capacities to change into fairly benign religions, Islam does not.

You sure can, because religionists are involved in a double-think:
What might be allowed for their God to do, might well be forbidden to them.

However, the life and teachings of their HUMAN idol DOES prescribe how they should live, and that is why it is less dangerous if someone wishes to model his life after Jesus Christ or Guru Nanak, than if they wish to emulate Mohammad ibn Abdallah.

I agree that Christianity and Sikhism have more potential for transition to more benign belief systems than Islam, but I would argue that the actual text of the Quran, not the adoration of Muhammed, is the fundamental problem. YMMV.

The problems we see in the Muslim world are not more prevelant because more individuals there have the RWA mindset; it’s because of Islam.

Six vs. a half dozen.

Or the chicken and the egg.

... something like that.

Islam is one of if not the most (large scale) right wing authoritarian paradigms.

bigredfutbol - 14 October 2008 03:06 PM

Westerners are just as susceptible to that kind of thinking, but we have had the Englightenment, and Christianity has some redeeming philosophical and ideological features that Islam lacks.

I agree. I’d only reserve exceptions to this disparity for the small number of rather extreme cases of radical, militant Christianity (white supremacists and such). On the other hand Islam is to at least some significant degree, reforming, partly as a result of the pressure brought on by the behavior of their “peers” as seen in the news. It has a hell of a long way to go, and whether it’s true to fundamentalist Islam or a literal or critical reading of the Koran or not, it’s a good thing.

Byron

Signature

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

WRONG.
Mohammad is widely regarded among Muslims to have been the ideal man, the most moral of men. THAT is the fundamental problem within Islam.
The Christian GOD is as vindictive as the Muslim God, and so is the Sikh God.
However, their respective founders/gurus were singularly non-violent men, focusing on eradicating social injustices they saw around them by peaceful means (Check up on the Guru Nanak).
No such qualities can be found in the horrid man Muslims choose to revere (or, rather, WORSHIP), and that makes Islam into a continuing blight upon this world.
Both Christianity and Sikhism have some limited capacities to change into fairly benign religions, Islam does not.

You sure can, because religionists are involved in a double-think:
What might be allowed for their God to do, might well be forbidden to them.

However, the life and teachings of their HUMAN idol DOES prescribe how they should live, and that is why it is less dangerous if someone wishes to model his life after Jesus Christ or Guru Nanak, than if they wish to emulate Mohammad ibn Abdallah.

I agree that Christianity and Sikhism have more potential for transition to more benign belief systems than Islam, but I would argue that the actual text of the Quran, not the adoration of Muhammed, is the fundamental problem. YMMV.

I respectfully disagree.
Most Muslims can’t read, nor know the actual content of most of the Quran (but they sure can recite it)

What they DO know, and are regaled with, are stories about the Prophet, how he did this, and how he did that, how he double-crossed the wicked Joos of Medina and chopped their heads off personally.

That is, an Islamic upbringing is first and foremost a brainwashing of young children into romanticizing and idolizing religiously driven sadism and violence.
THAT is the major issue.

The problems we see in the Muslim world are not more prevelant because more individuals there have the RWA mindset; it’s because of Islam.

Six vs. a half dozen.

Or the chicken and the egg.

... something like that.

Islam is one of if not the most (large scale) right wing authoritarian paradigms.

bigredfutbol - 14 October 2008 03:06 PM

Westerners are just as susceptible to that kind of thinking, but we have had the Englightenment, and Christianity has some redeeming philosophical and ideological features that Islam lacks.

I agree. I’d only reserve exceptions to this disparity for the small number of rather extreme cases of radical, militant Christianity (white supremacists and such). On the other hand Islam is to at least some significant degree, reforming, partly as a result of the pressure brought on by the behavior of their “peers” as seen in the news. It has a hell of a long way to go, and whether it’s true to fundamentalist Islam or a literal or critical reading of the Koran or not, it’s a good thing.

Byron

I said it was irrelevent not because I don’t think Islam is a right-wing authoritarian ideology—it most certainly is. My point is that some people seem to use that starting point as a justification for dismissive generalizations about all people who are self-described Muslims without taking any other factors into consideration. You and I and arildno share a very low, low opinion of the religion, its tenets, it’s teachings, its prophet, and much of its influence both within and without the Muslim world.

Dropping links about RWAs and so forth in the middle of a debate over whether or not we can dismiss any and all individual adherents of a deeply flawed belief system based solely on a yes/no black & white “they claim to believe this therefore they must subscribe to [X]” seemed to me to imply that Muslims are more prone to that particular personality type. I’m not so sure. I think individual Muslims are simply trapped in a world where the RWAs have a lot more clout and legitimacy—and, more to the point, fewer restraints and weaker opposition from within their own societies.

For kicks and grins, check out Pat Condell’s site for a different take on Islam influence in the UK and political correctness.http://www.patcondell.net/ He’s been banned from YouTube for being intolerant and divisive.

Mesomorph,

For example, Muslim women prefer to keep their faces covered in public even when not forced to do so - see this story. And it is women who perform the barbaric practice of pharaonic circumcision on young girls.

You’ve got to be shitting me. Really. Where in that article did you pick up that Muslim women “prefer to keep their faces covered…”? You know, if my husband or father was 100% within his rights to beat me to a pulp if I wasn’t wearing a full veil, I’d prefer it too. And let’s not forget that an unveiled woman is tempting men to rape her, so she’ll be put to death if she brings that upon herself.

As for the genital mutilation, a man wouldn’t be the one to do it based on their rules/laws about interaction between genders. If you didn’t know anything else, and it was required of every girl, I can’t see how they could deviate without bringing a death sentence on themselves. I’d imagine, too, that the women are brainwashed to believe that sexual pleasure is not allowed for women, thereby making genital mutilation necessary. I hate the term “circumcision” because it TOTALLY minimizes what is done. They don’t just have the clitorous snipped off by a doctor. From my understanding, they have it ground off with a sharp rock, and in some cultures the labia are stitched together with only the vagina open for the man. *shudders*

Don’t get your panties in a bunch - if I’m sounding off at anyone, it’s Muhammed.

Signature

Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home.
—Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Muslim women are, first and foremost, living, perceiving INDIVIDUALS.
What that means is that their natural primary focus is towards themselves (because others can never be other than objects, she is the unique, perceiving subject), and that others, and others’ opinions of them are secondary to this.

Thus, insofar as they DO shift in their priorities so that they start to “prefer” others’ opinions of how they ought to live, rather than acting on whims of their own regardless of such opinions they might engender, then that shift is the result of a systematic brainwash from the outside, leading to the internalization of society’s norms within the individual.

Obviously, within EVERY society, some type of social brainwashing and resultant internalization is desirable, and can even be regarded as morally beneficial and necessary (for example, toilet training for toddlers).

It is therefore nothing inherently wrong with social brainwashing as such; rather, the divide into morally acceptable brainwashing and morally unacceptable brainwash follows a different principle than between “social influence” vs. “individual whims”.

It is, essentially, wound up with the ethical principles one follows.

Since for every individual she is the natural centre of the universe (everything else is just objects, she is the one perceiving them), an individualistic ethic is the only type of ethics that pays sufficient attention to this empirical fact.

All other ethical objects set up as a goal the preservation/improvement of some fantasy structure, rather than the preservation/improvement of the real structures of individuals trying to live together.

Such fantasy structures which are invoked are plent, it might be “the will of God”, “the will of the People”, “the good of the Race”, “the preservation of the Family”, “the nobility of blood”, “to win the class struggle” and similar immoral thoughts.

Now:
Since a woman being unveiled performs thereby an action that is not incompatible with the freedoms of others, we are, in fact, morally obliged to respect her choice of being unveiled as a morally acceptable exercise of her freedom, and it is therefore morally wrong for anyone to interfere, or hinder, or demonize her as a slut for making that particular choice.

But this moral duty to respect the unveiled woman is the duty Muslims consistently fail to uphold.
Therefore, they are to be regarded as moral violators.
As for those women saying that they prefer to wear the veil, and that other women should, too, they are to be dismissed as morally incompetent individuals.

The only reasons WHY they choose at all times to wear the veil is that they have been told, and have swallowed, malicious immoral lies about unveiled women (i.e, that they are worthless women comparable to whores), and they are to be regarded as brainwashed to the point where their expressed thoughts no longer are to be granted weight.

Superficially, couldn’t we turn the argument around and say that because a woman wearing a veil doesn’t prevent others from doing as they please, therefore we must respect her choice of veiling herself in public?

Well, the answer is: not if it is far more probable that she is doing so because she is a moral violator, rather than a non-violator (violators are not entitled to the same rights as non-violators, precisely because they have broken moral duties incumbent on them)

Since it is HIGHLY probable that a Muslim woman preferring to wear the veil does so precisely because she do not want to identify herself with worthless women like whores and other unveiled women, she is to be regarded as a moral violator.

An Icelandic woman, however, who one day thinks it would be cool to go about in a burka, or finds out that that particular garment keeps the cold out, is NOT a moral violator, and her choice is to be respected, in contrast to the decision of the Muslim woman.